DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
As discussed in the previous Office action, legal phraseology, such as “means” (see line 1) should not be present therein. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In regard to claim 34, as discussed in the previous Office action, an antecedent basis for “the opening of said cap” (see line 3) has not been defined. It appears “the opening of the cap” should be “the first opening of the cap”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-29, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iniesta et al. (US 2020/0198850, hereinafter Iniesta, as disclosed by the Applicant).
In regard to claim 21, the Iniesta reference discloses a multi-flow cap 1 for liquids comprising a part 20, 30 having a means of attachment 28 to a neck of a container (see paragraph 0039, lines 10-13), the part 20, 30 forming a main body of the cap 1, two unevenly sized flow outlet openings 31, 32, such that they define a large and small opening, wherein the two opening form an integral part of a component 30 that forms the main body 20, 30 of the cap.
In regard to claim 22, the openings are diametrically opposite (see Figure 7).
In regard to claim 23, at least one of the openings is circular trapezium shaped.
In regard to claim 24, the main body comprises a first plurality of baffles 34 distributed along an inner perimeter of the main body and arranged such that each opening is partially coincident with at least one baffle in an outflow direction (see Figure 8).
In regard to claim 25, the baffles and respective spacings thereof are evenly distributed between one another (see Figure 9).
In regard to claim 26, the cap comprises a spacing between baffles at least partially coincident with each of the openings (see Figure 8).
In regard to claim 27, the baffles are petal shaped (see paragraph 0021, line 13).
In regard to claim 28, each of the baffles are tilted away from an outflow.
In regard to claim 29, a length of each baffle is such that a horizontal projection thereof is less than a horizontal projection of a length of each of the openings (see Figure 8 and paragraph 0016).
In regard to claim 31, the Iniesta device further comprises a cover 10 configured to close the cap.
In regard to claim 32, the cover of the cap is a hinged cover (see paragraph 0034, lines 4- 7).
In regard to claim 33, the cap includes a tear-away first-opening system 21, 27 (see paragraph 0026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 30 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iniesta.
In regard to claim 30, although the Iniesta reference does not disclose a second plurality of baffles on a lower face of the main body and centrally located with respect to the first plurality of baffles, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the cap could include a second plurality of baffles positioned as claimed since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device requires only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regard to claim 34, the tear-away first opening system comprises a token 27 comprising a tear-away connector 24, the token being deformed during a first opening of the cap, evidencing the first opening of the cap.
Although the Iniesta reference discloses a single connector 24 and not a plural amount of connectors, as claimed, the examiner takes official notice that such frangible connectors are commonly formed with empty spaced therebetween (thereby forming a plural amount of connectors) in order to enable the token to be more easily removed. Accordingly, it would have Application/Control Number: 18/566,814 Page 7 Art Unit: 3754 been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was the connector 24 can be designed to be made from several spaced connectors in order to enable the token 27 to be more easily removed.
In regard to claim 35, the token 27 comprises a tab 21 to facilitate opening of the cap.
In regard to claims 36-40, these claims define known and alternative designs of tear-away opening systems (as disclosed by the Applicant, i.e., see the last paragraph on page 11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the tear-away opening system in the Iniesta device can be replaced by any of the claimed opening systems wherein such a modification would amount to the mere substitution of one functionally equivalent opening system for another and the selection of any of those opening systems would work equally well on the Iniesta device. It is further noted the Applicant has not placed any criticality on the specific structure of the opening system (as evidenced by the numerous disclosed embodiments of opening systems) and the Iniesta reference does not limit the type of opening system which can be used on the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends the Iniesta reference is not applicable against claim 21 since claim 21 requires the two openings are an integral part of the main body whereas the Iniesta device includes a separate insert with the two openings. However, claim 21 does not require the two openings are an integral part of the main body but rather requires “the two openings form an integral part of a component that forms the main body”. Viewing Figure 2 in the Iniesta reference, the main body includes elements 20 and 30 and the openings 31, 32 are an integral part of a component 30 that “forms the main body” of the cap, i.e., claim 21 does not define the entire main body is formed as a one-piece integral unit, but rather defines the openings are an integral part of a component that forms the main body. Component 30 is considered to “form the main body” in that component 30 forms a portion of the main body, i.e., the claim does not indicate the component forms the entire main body, but only “forms the main body”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DJW
10/28/25
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754